If you go to a movie, and the movie is about a bunch of hardened gangsters who kill people brutally, are you a hardened brutal killer? What about a movie that features lovable kittens and puppies? What if you make a painting of a big valentines heart -- does that make you in love let alone Cupid?

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

And that's a SIMPLIFIED explanation. It is before we get into variable expression at the molecular level of the myriad of genes involved in sexuality. Even though the expression of most of the genes is modal or bi-modal (depending on Y-chromosome influence), there is a spread of variability in characteristics and strength of expression (including absence and multiple copies of genes) and that all adds up to ANYTHING is possible in sexuality - and the Catholic Church can do sweet fuckall about it.

Actually, anything ISN’T possible in sexuality. Believe it or not – there are limits. There exist an order and design. No matter how much a man wants to carry a baby, unless he has a womb – he cannot. A person can have a strong sexual desire to have sex with a grizzly bear – good luck with that. A person may call herself a man, but unless she has a penus she cannot impregnate a woman. This isn’t the Church talking – It’s not me imposing such laws -- it’s life. And people have to deal with it.

You have completely missed the point. The genetic mechanisms, their demonstrated fragility, and their interaction with environment means that a person's sexuality vector can be in either direction or any degree of bisexuality inbetween, and it can vary in strength from zero libido to sexual overdrive. AND that is before CHOICE.

Agent40, stop and think about it for a minute - allow yourself to think for yourself. Stop defending the indefensible. If you're going to come back to me with a rebuttal then make sure it addresses the point - not a meaningless tangent. Huffing and puffing about pregnancies in men or having sex with bears has fuckall to do with the point. All it shows is that you hope I wont notice that you have no real answer.

That last one is a doozy, slaughtering infants? I consider that immoral and I'm not sure how you can twist it to show otherwise. And those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are verses far more grotesque. Don't forget all the animals God senselessly commanded to be sacrificed to himself.

Gosh, how you all simply don’t get it. Ok, what part of supernatural deity don’t you understand? Do you think a supreme being is subject to the same laws we are subject to? Do you think the creator of the universe might actually know and foresee something that we couldn’t possibly? Ya think?

Then it is only reasonable to understand that God can do no bad – again it is impossible. So what you are seeing as bad is not bad. If God commanded you to fight your enemies – then this would be for your good and believe it or not also the good of your enemies. This is something you simply don’t get. God loves everyone. If you are on the receiving end of something you think is cruel or unjust and coming from God – you are clueless. If God has allowed some harm to come to you – it is only to bring about a greater good. It could very well be His mercy that He allows the wicked to be killed. You might not understand this, but God is doing them a favor. Again, if you think of God as cruel and evil then you obviously wouldn’t understand such. But if you looked at Him as He is which is just, and merciful, and good, and love, then you would trust in His plan and actions – for clearly an omnipotent, all-wise being might know a little more than us.

I don’t know how else to explain it than you completely misunderstand God’s actions in the Old Testament. You see God only as you see yourself, and if that’s how you see Him, then it is no wonder you miss His divinity.

My question remains;Quote from: Hermes on Today at 07:11:59 PM* Where did your deity supposedly ever say it was good?

Quote

If you go to a movie, and the movie is about a bunch of hardened gangsters who kill people brutally, are you a hardened brutal killer? What about a movie that features lovable kittens and puppies? What if you make a painting of a big valentines heart -- does that make you in love let alone Cupid?

Once again, an atheist not understanding the Bible. Wow! Imagine that!

The Bible is the word of God. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. Does making a valentine heart make me Cupid? NO, but if I was one of the inspired authors of the Bible – then that makes the words I wrote God’s words. Get it?

You have completely missed the point. The genetic mechanisms, their demonstrated fragility, and their interaction with environment means that a person's sexuality vector can be in either direction or any degree of bisexuality inbetween, and it can vary in strength from zero libido to sexual overdrive. AND that is before CHOICE.

I’ve missed nothing. Two natures exist – male and female. We are all unique and have different personalities, likes and dislikes, but we have one nature. Please don’t pretend I am unaware of the complexity of human life. Such irony amuses me.

Quote

The mere fact that you think this statement is a "joke" says a lot about you. You have no satisfactory answer about the extent and nature of sexual abuse going on inside the catholic church

I’m sorry I didn’t know I was being asked to explain the nature of the sexual abuse scandal. If you want to hear my thoughts on that – why don’t you start a new thread? But to divert the topic at hand by bringing up something that has nothing to do with what we were discussing only shows you had little else to say.

You have completely missed the point. The genetic mechanisms, their demonstrated fragility, and their interaction with environment means that a person's sexuality vector can be in either direction or any degree of bisexuality inbetween, and it can vary in strength from zero libido to sexual overdrive. AND that is before CHOICE.

I’ve missed nothing. Two natures exist – male and female. We are all unique and have different personalities, likes and dislikes, but we have one nature. Please don’t pretend I am unaware of the complexity of human life. Such irony amuses me.

The mere fact that you think this statement is a "joke" says a lot about you. You have no satisfactory answer about the extent and nature of sexual abuse going on inside the catholic church

I’m sorry I didn’t know I was being asked to explain the nature of the sexual abuse scandal. If you want to hear my thoughts on that – why don’t you start a new thread? But to divert the topic at hand by bringing up something that has nothing to do with what we were discussing only shows you had little else to say.

No, no, no ... you cant wiggle off the hook like that. You chose to call it a joke.

Is it a joke?

Or is it something relevant to both innate sexuality and "CHOICE" - both perfectly legitimate in the context of this thread topic.

My question remains;Quote from: Hermes on Today at 07:11:59 PM* Where did your deity supposedly ever say it was good?

Quote

If you go to a movie, and the movie is about a bunch of hardened gangsters who kill people brutally, are you a hardened brutal killer? What about a movie that features lovable kittens and puppies? What if you make a painting of a big valentines heart -- does that make you in love let alone Cupid?

Once again, an atheist not understanding the Bible. Wow! Imagine that!

The Bible is the word of God. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. Does making a valentine heart make me Cupid? NO, but if I was one of the inspired authors of the Bible – then that makes the words I wrote God’s words. Get it?

So, you have a deity and you think that deity exists and that your religious book is the word of that deity.

OK. Taking that as a given for a moment, but only for a moment, I have a slightly different question;

* Where did your deity ever say that it was good?

As I pointed out, the quotes you gave from your religious text, Genesis, do not say that your deity says it is good. Instead, they say your deity was able to identify something that was good.

If you do not know the answer to this question, and you are only saying you believe your deity to be good, then state that. It will be an acknowledgement of the validity of my question, but that new statement will be one that you can support for what it is without digging a hole for yourself.

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

Agent40, do you consider it honest, or not honest, to assume that you know more about someone's life than they do?

It's an either-or question. Take your time.

If you had a friend who was struggling with a drug addiction, do you not think you could apply certain judgments or advice based on our knowledge in general regarding those who have struggled with drug addiction? We do things like this all the time in life. Because although every case is unique, there are also shared behaviors of those who struggle with certain things. To not acknowledge this is what would be dishonest.

Do you have an honest and direct answer to the question I actually asked? You know, while we're on the topic of honesty and all.

With regard to your flawed analogy, would you make the claim that you know the drug-addict to have had an abusive childhood? That's more in-line with what we're talking about. Let's say you meet a cocaine addict, who claims to have gotten hooked in high school and has been doing it ever since. You go on to claim that they must have had an abusive childhood in order for that to happen. The addict says "umm...no, I had a pretty good childhood, but my pot dealer kept lacing my joints with coke, so I got hooked". You say "well, you just don't know that you had a rough childhood. People don't always know that sort of thing."

The biggest problem here, Agent40, is that in such a situation, YOU ARE CLAIMING TO KNOW - yet you have no way of knowing it. The details of that person's childhood are not in evidence. All you have to say about them is your own dogma. You have pre-judged the person to have had an abusive childhood before gathering any data about them at all. Just like you did with Onesimus.

In his case, you refuse to accept his own account of his childhood. What would convince you that your pre-judgment about him is incorrect? I suspect, based on your posting history, that nothing would. Facts cannot alter your pre-judgment.

That is the dictionary definition of prejudice and bigotry. And you're proud of it. Shame.

No, Pinkmilk, that is not what it means. You all continue to look deeply for the flaws in my worldview.

No need to look deeply for them

Quote

You continue to set forth extreme examples in the hope of tripping me up so to speak.

I didn't set forth this example, nor have I most of the "extreme" examples.

Quote

It is silly to take am example of a hermaphrodite and want me to make some blanket statement. As you said yourself, it can be determined the sex that the person is suppose to be – so what exactly is the problem?

The idea behind an extreme question like this, is that you claim that everything has an intended purpose. But the problem is that not everything fits into the box so neatly. Some women are born without ovaries. That means that they can not reproduce. Other women can not reproduce for other reasons. But this in and of itself separates the unitive nature of sex that you're always on about. They can not reproduce. So should these people abstain? That's the point Agent40.

Quote

Typically, in these cases if a person has extra genitalia it can be taken care of when they are young. The incorrect parts can be removed or whatever, in which case the person can go on to lead quite a normal life. Why must you all make something more there? If it is truly a case where even science is baffled – which I highly doubt is very common – then yes, I suppose in that rare instance it might be better were the person to sexually abstain. I’m sorry if you have a problem with that, but how can you be so sure the person would have a problem with that?

How can you? I'm not the one asking anything of such a person.

Quote

Again, Pinkmilk, my views are not as extreme as you like to paint them and they are much more logical then your own.

They are not though. They are bigoted ideas that say that one way of living is correct and any other way is immoral. You try to cover this up by saying, "Oh, I'm sure they're lovely people", but you are still calling them immoral. So please, don't sit here and pretend that your brand of religious bigotry is more logical than my acceptance of people.

Now are you going to answer the question that I've been posing to you all along.

You have said that your arguments against homosexuality are not religious, but are based on the "natural moral order". Here's the thing, you have yet to provide evidence to prove the "natural moral order" is indeed true. Without doing so, all of your claims are baseless. So will you please prove the foundation for all of your arguments?

Logged

I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

God would not command a person to do something immoral. If God commands it – by definition it could not be immoral. You do not understand my religion or scripture. You twist and contort what you do not understand because you think you are smarter than God.

Agent40, please do not play the idiot. You explicitly asked the question when could rape/tyranny be justified. My response was that it could be justified when God orders it, and by your response, it is clear that when God orders rape, it is justified because God is outside of moral law. But I thought sin were those actions that are against the very nature of god. Now you say that he orders rape, it is not a sin. So you have just made a mockery of sin, because it is nothing more than the whim of god, which doesn't equate to anything more than a deity's ever-changing mind.

Way to go.

Agent40, you have also neglected to answer my question: Is it wrong to have sex with a nine-year old girl within the context of marriage?

This is a common misunderstanding of moral truth. Of course what is right or wrong depends on the situation.

Congratulations on killing your own notion of there being any kind of "absolute" morality. You must not understand what that word means. You can't have "absolutely" morality that changes depending on the situation.

FAIL.

Agent40, you have also failed to answer another question of mine: Is it wrong to have sex with a nine-year old girl within in the context of marriage? If so, what is your biblical reference for this?

Logged

"As a God fearing Christian, you should never ever date an Atheist. One night alone with an atheist is enough for you to lose your faith and to be converted into one of the spiritually dead."

Gosh, how you all simply don’t get it. Ok, what part of supernatural deity don’t you understand? Do you think a supreme being is subject to the same laws we are subject to? Do you think the creator of the universe might actually know and foresee something that we couldn’t possibly? Ya think?

Then it is only reasonable to understand that God can do no bad – again it is impossible. So what you are seeing as bad is not bad. If God commanded you to fight your enemies – then this would be for your good and believe it or not also the good of your enemies. This is something you simply don’t get. God loves everyone. If you are on the receiving end of something you think is cruel or unjust and coming from God – you are clueless. If God has allowed some harm to come to you – it is only to bring about a greater good. It could very well be His mercy that He allows the wicked to be killed. You might not understand this, but God is doing them a favor. Again, if you think of God as cruel and evil then you obviously wouldn’t understand such. But if you looked at Him as He is which is just, and merciful, and good, and love, then you would trust in His plan and actions – for clearly an omnipotent, all-wise being might know a little more than us.

Agent40, I must not be getting it, but let's continue and maybe I will.

Can you please clear up 1 Samuel 15:3 for me. God commands Saul to smite Amalek and kill every man, woman, infant (innocent), suckling (innocent), ox (innocent), sheep (innocent), camel (innocent) and ass (innocent). If you can justify those deaths, maybe I could take a step closer to seeing where you are coming from. Omnipotence doesn't equate to good or love or just or merciful.

If your god lined up 1000 infants, and commanded you to hack their bodies into lifeless pieces of flesh, would you be okay with that?

Humor me, out of the thousands of gods to choose from why did you pick the Christian god?

You see God only as you see yourself, and if that’s how you see Him, then it is no wonder you miss His divinity.

This is incorrect. If I thought that the god of the bible had a moral compass more strict that humans, I might have believed in him. But I see the god of the bible exactly how he is: A rollercoaster of human emotions. Biblegod's personality is a mix and match grabbag of the human condition. Why? Hint: Because the bible was written by man, inspired by man. Could it be you're just making excuses for your god, trying to make him appear more moral than he is? It is understandable, if I were to pick a god I would want the wisest, most personal, loving, and affectionate god. Unfortuantely, that is not the god from the Torah.

I couldn’t disagree more. To separate the procreative aspect from the sex act is immoral. It violates the moral order.

Hmmm, and we have yet to see just what this "moral order" is. Just like the "natural order", all concepts to claim "what I believe and want is what is "true" because I'm Agent40 and am the only one who knows God."

Nothing like repetition of stuff that has been long shown to be garbage as if repetitions makes it oh-so-twue!

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I couldn’t disagree more. To separate the procreative aspect from the sex act is immoral. It violates the moral order.

Hmmm, and we have yet to see just what this "moral order" is. Just like the "natural order", all concepts to claim "what I believe and want is what is "true" because I'm Agent40 and am the only one who knows God."

Nothing like repetition of stuff that has been long shown to be garbage as if repetitions makes it oh-so-twue!

Not to mention, that even once we have a clear understanding of what these things are, it doesn't mean that they are true. Her entire argument is based on these things, and yet she has not ever once provided a clear and full description of these things, or a single shred of evidence to show that these things are true.

Balls in your court Agent40.

Logged

I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

What? are you coming late to the game here? We’ve already discussed situations like those. It certainly doesn’t mean hermaphrodites or intersexed people have different natures. Shall we invent a 3rd, 4th, and 5th nature? What science will you be using to prove such?

So, you have a deity and you think that deity exists and that your religious book is the word of that deity.

OK. Taking that as a given for a moment, but only for a moment, I have a slightly different question;

* Where did your deity ever say that it was good?

As I pointed out, the quotes you gave from your religious text, Genesis, do not say that your deity says it is good. Instead, they say your deity was able to identify something that was good.

If you do not know the answer to this question, and you are only saying you believe your deity to be good, then state that. It will be an acknowledgement of the validity of my question, but that new statement will be one that you can support for what it is without digging a hole for yourself.

Where did my God ever say it was good? What are you referring to by “it” in your sentence? Himself? So where did God ever say He, Himself is good?

If that is what you are referring to, then I must respond that the entire Bible is full of passages declaring God is good.

Again, God inspired the words that are written in the Bible to be exactly what He wanted them to be. This was His way of explaining and describing who He is. So the fact that quotes like this are found in the Bible clearly inform us God is good . . .

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. – Deuteronomy 32:4

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. –Matthew 5:48

for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." – 1 Peter 1:16

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. –John 1:5

To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. –Psalm 92:15

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. –James 1:17

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. –James 3:17

For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." –Genesis 3:5

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. –2 Samuel 22:31

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. – Romans 12:2

Whoever invokes a blessing in the land will do so by the God of truth; he who takes an oath in the land will swear by the God of truth. For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes. – Isaiah 65:16

All of these passages – (though certainly not all there ar) reveal that God was communicating with us that He is Good. This is clearly what He wants us to realize. And based on His actions, behavior, words, divine nature, supreme beingness, etc, it is most definitely something we can conclude to be true.

Scripture is what God thinks and what god says, therefore there is no other conclusion then to know God is good.

“Scripture is the word and mind of God, and just as it is a contradiction to say that we love a person and hate everything about him (since everything about him is him), our iove, faith and reverence toward God can never rise higher than our love, faith, and reverence toward the Bible.”

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom [1] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work. -- 2 Timothy 3:14-17

With regard to your flawed analogy, would you make the claim that you know the drug-addict to have had an abusive childhood? That's more in-line with what we're talking about. Let's say you meet a cocaine addict, who claims to have gotten hooked in high school and has been doing it ever since. You go on to claim that they must have had an abusive childhood in order for that to happen. The addict says "umm...no, I had a pretty good childhood, but my pot dealer kept lacing my joints with coke, so I got hooked". You say "well, you just don't know that you had a rough childhood. People don't always know that sort of thing."

No, I wouldn’t make the claim that the cocaine addict must have had an abusive relationship. However, why did he even need to turn to pot in the first place? Were his parents not around to affirm his self worth? These are all valid inquiries that should be looked into. How or why he became an addict is only the beginning of being able to help him. Once he is an addict, now we can certainly make certain assumptions about the behaviors of addicts. Again, is everyone different? Of course, but there are common traits that addicts share – keeping their problem a secret, perhaps stealing, certain places causing them more temptation to use, etc. Can we not use some of this information describing drug addicts to help us help the person? Why so opposed to such? How is it judging? I am trying to help. What you propose is to put your head in the sand and say I couldn’t possibly begin to understand what might cause a person to start using or possibly understand what might help a person stop, so I will not even try. Kind of an extreme approach all because you fear coming across as judgmental.

Quote

The biggest problem here, Agent40, is that in such a situation, YOU ARE CLAIMING TO KNOW - yet you have no way of knowing it. The details of that person's childhood are not in evidence. All you have to say about them is your own dogma. You have pre-judged the person to have had an abusive childhood before gathering any data about them at all. Just like you did with Onesimus.

I am not claiming to know. What I am claiming is we need to investigate the situation further -- A perfectly reasonable and compassionate approach.

Quote

In his case, you refuse to accept his own account of his childhood. What would convince you that your pre-judgment about him is incorrect? I suspect, based on your posting history, that nothing would. Facts cannot alter your pre-judgment.

Ooh, I think you have that a little backwards. I am all about facts in the situation of same-sex attraction. It is you and others on this thread who wish to throw facts out the window.

I have no idea of Onesimus’s childhood, as none of us have any idea about anyone’s childhood. And again I am not pre-judging him negatively. I want nothing but the best for Onesimus. How can you possibly know that supporting his homosexual lifestyle is what’s best? I’m sorry, but by doing so, you are claiming to know what is best. I have given the numerous reasons why I believe engaging in homosexual acts are wrong and never in a person’s best interest to do so. What were your reasons again for supporting such behavior?

The idea behind an extreme question like this, is that you claim that everything has an intended purpose. But the problem is that not everything fits into the box so neatly. Some women are born without ovaries. That means that they can not reproduce. Other women can not reproduce for other reasons. But this in and of itself separates the unitive nature of sex that you're always on about. They can not reproduce. So should these people abstain? That's the point Agent40.

Pinkmilk, I do not wish to be rude here, but the questions you are proposing are so rudimentary, and I am so sure I have answered them on numerous other threads, but suffice to say a woman born without ovaries is still a woman and her improper development is actually the exception not the norm. If she remains true to performing the sexual act as it was intended and in the same way that every other woman is expected to do and does not get pregnant she is doing nothing wrong.

Aberations in nature do not do away with what is normal. And only a person being honest with himself would admit in general women are born with ovaries.

Quote

They are bigoted ideas that say that one way of living is correct and any other way is immoral

Why are my ideas bigoted and not yours? It is you who is being hypocritical. You can’t have it both ways Pinkmilk. You can’t claim it is ok to have homosexual sex and my belief that homosexual sex is wrong is wrong. You can’t criticize me that I can’t claim there is a correct way to act and then go on to claim I am not acting correctly. How do you know it is not correct to say there is a correct way to act?

Quote

You have said that your arguments against homosexuality are not religious, but are based on the "natural moral order". Here's the thing, you have yet to provide evidence to prove the "natural moral order" is indeed true. Without doing so, all of your claims are baseless. So will you please prove the foundation for all of your arguments?

Certainly, Pinkmilk, as soon as you please prove the foundation for your claim that homosexual acts are ok.

Congratulations on killing your own notion of there being any kind of "absolute" morality. You must not understand what that word means. You can't have "absolutely" morality that changes depending on the situation.

FAIL.

Uugh! You aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? Again, I have answered this very question from others numerous times. I simply don’t have time to go into another dissertation on absolute truth. Please educate yourself. It is precisely your boring and repeated questions that I have long ago addressed that will make it impossible for me to keep up with all the posts. It’s exhausting and I simply haven’t the time to take you by the hand today and walk you through it. I’m sorry to be so short and and rude, but I have a busy day . . .

I’ll have to leave it here for now. You all keep me too busy with your faulty logic and I have other things to tend to . . .

So, you have a deity and you think that deity exists and that your religious book is the word of that deity.

OK. Taking that as a given for a moment, but only for a moment, I have a slightly different question;

* Where did your deity ever say that it was good?

As I pointed out, the quotes you gave from your religious text, Genesis, do not say that your deity says it is good. Instead, they say your deity was able to identify something that was good.

If you do not know the answer to this question, and you are only saying you believe your deity to be good, then state that. It will be an acknowledgement of the validity of my question, but that new statement will be one that you can support for what it is without digging a hole for yourself.

What are you referring to by “it” in your sentence? Himself? So where did God ever say He, Himself is good?

That's a curious point to make a fuss over. Well, since you brought it up, I have a question for you; what would a lone deity need with balls and a scrotum, let alone a penis? Zeus, I can understand. He isn't alone and also has quite a reputation for being a randy deity -- so Zeus makes sense. But why yours? Am I missing a book in your current ideological canon? Is it for Asherah or Lilith perhaps?

Again, God inspired the words that are written in the Bible to be exactly what He wanted them to be. This was His way of explaining and describing who He is. So the fact that quotes like this are found in the Bible clearly inform us God is good . . .

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. – Deuteronomy 32:4

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. –Matthew 5:48

for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." – 1 Peter 1:16

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. –John 1:5

To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. –Psalm 92:15

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. –James 1:17

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. –James 3:17

For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." –Genesis 3:5

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. –2 Samuel 22:31

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. – Romans 12:2

Whoever invokes a blessing in the land will do so by the God of truth; he who takes an oath in the land will swear by the God of truth. For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes. – Isaiah 65:16

All of these passages – (though certainly not all there ar) reveal that God was communicating with us that He is Good. This is clearly what He wants us to realize. And based on His actions, behavior, words, divine nature, supreme beingness, etc, it is most definitely something we can conclude to be true.

Scripture is what God thinks and what god says, therefore there is no other conclusion then to know God is good.

“Scripture is the word and mind of God, and just as it is a contradiction to say that we love a person and hate everything about him (since everything about him is him), our iove, faith and reverence toward God can never rise higher than our love, faith, and reverence toward the Bible.”

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom [1] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work. -- 2 Timothy 3:14-17

So, I read a few ambiguous analogies, some comments from authority and justice, some on perfection, some on truth (an assertion of dogma btw), but none on any inherent goodness.

Did I miss something, or are you cherry picking the good parts and just asserting that your deity must be good based on that limited sample? After all, you would not claim the whole Bible is his idea, would you?

Again, God inspired the words that are written in the Bible to be exactly what He wanted them to be. This was His way of explaining and describing who He is. So the fact that quotes like this are found in the Bible clearly inform us God is good . . .

Well, maybe you would. Do you want to retract or rephrase any of that before I make a few obvious comments?

« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 12:38:07 PM by Hermes »

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

I said the act of eating a lot of food and then purposely vomiting it up is a disordered act and therefore wrong (immoral).

I said:

Quote

You say the act of self-induced vomiting is immoral, whereas we say it's a symptom of mental illness. OK?

Agent40 replied:

Quote

No, not ok

What do you mean, "not OK"?

What are you disagreeing with? You say bulimic acts are immoral, we say they're a symptom of mental illness. Correct? If not, why not?

(An aside. Agent40, you have a habit of making general statements of the form "We all think x...". This presumes that everyone thinks the way you do, and that you are in a position to speak for everyone. Not so. Your hardline Catholic position is a minority view. Very few people these days believe that masturbation is harmful and immoral. Only people like you. In the quotes below I've bolded this fallacy).

Back to your post:

Quote

Why do we believe that a person who purposely eats food and them vomits it up has a mental disorder?

Because it harms the person. It is detrimental to their health.

Quote

What makes us all initially innately know that such behavior is wrong?

It's not wrong. It's a matter of mental health, not morality.

But, bulimia has been around for centuries. The Romans built vomitoria [Edit: er.. I just found out that the Romans did indeed build vomitoria, but they weren't used for vomiting. They did however vomit at meal-times. Explanation here, and wiki confirms it.], and the practice wasn't recognized (innately or otherwise) as wrong/harmful. But then the Romans didn't know about the vital function of bacteria in the stomach and other effects.

And the harmful effects of bulimia remained hidden until 1979, when the disorder was finally named and the harm spelled out.

So much for us knowing innately that bulimia is wrong.

Quote

We all instinctually can determine that such behavior is wrong because the person is using their body in a way in which it was not intended